Walking Rural in Tzacauil, Yucatan, Mexico

Abstract

How were so-called rural Maya settlements experienced by the people who lived in them? In this article, I focus on the archaeology of walking in the small site of Tzacauil, Yucatan (outlying the much larger site of Yaxuna), to explore how experiences of rurality were historically and socially contingent. Walking produces and reproduces embodied understandings of place—and, as such, can yield a more dynamic conceptualization of rurality. In Formative Tzacauil (ca. 300 b.c.–a.d. 250), grounded walking, incorporated with and sensitive to terrain, coexisted alongside groundless walking on artificial surfaces (i.e., sacbes and built walkways) imposed onto terrain. I argue that an understanding of everyday walking in Formative Tzacauil was not unlike that of urbanizing Yaxuna. I propose that only in Classic Tzacauil (ca. a.d. 550–1100) did walking become categorically different from Yaxuna, and I discuss how that shift opens new avenues for inquiry into rurality as an embodied experience of place that was always subject to change.

Rethinking the Rural in Ancient Maya Studies

“…Moreover, through formalized settlement classifications, archaeologists recognized significant variation among and between a range of settlements. Settlements identified as “rural” have been found to differ in their distance from larger centers, spatial organization, and architectural elements, some of which were originally assumed to exist in only major centers (Connell 2010; Hutson et al 2015; Iannone and Connell 2003; Sheets et al 2015; Walling et al 2005; see also Fisher 2022; Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Valdez et al 2022). These findings, along with the architectural variation identified within settlements, challenged earlier notions that sites within the same settlement rank were functionally and socially redundant and led many archaeologists to argue that ancient Maya social stratification was more complex than a two-class (elite versus commoners) model (Carmean 1991; Chase 1992; Hammond 1991; Hendon 1991; McAnany 1993; Sharer 1993).…”

“…As summarized elsewhere (Lamb 2020), through the past and continued investigations including the contributions of this Special Section, our understandings of the rural ancient Maya have radically changed. Farming was an essential rural activity, as it was in most cities, yet rural residents pursued diverse livelihoods through a range of farming techniques and crops, resource specializations, and water-management systems (Dixon 2013; Johnston 2004; Sheets et al 2012; see also Fisher 2022 and Valdez et al 2022) and were also capable craft producers (Isaza Aizpurúa and McAnany 1999; Robin et al 2014; Sheets 2000; VandenBosch et al 2010; see also Lamb 2022; Pantoja et al 2022; Valdez et al 2022). They engaged in hierarchical and heterarchical economic systems of different scales, at times outside of the purview of regional capitals (Keller 2012; Kestle 2012; Potter and King 1995; Scarborough and Valdez 2009; Sheets 2000; VandenBosch et al 2010; see also Lamb 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Pantoja et al 2022; Valdez et al 2022).…”

“…Yet rural settlements are not natural entities; they are maintained and transformed over time through external forces as well as local practices, choices, and relations. Moreover, the conditions of rural life and place constantly change alongside broader social, economic, and political relations, thus shifting in significant ways the material, spatial and social manifestations of rurality (see Fisher 2022; Ingalls and Yaeger 2022). Various case studies demonstrate that rural longevity and resilience can be explained beyond outdated notions of rurality as isolated and self-sustaining (e.g., Iannone et al 2014; Robin 2012; Schwarz 2013; see also Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022; McNeil et al 2022).…”

“…Although a few edited volumes and sole-authored books have focused on the rural ancient Maya, this Special Section differs from these publications in its breadth. The contributors present research across the Maya area, spanning from the Preclassic through the Classic to address diverse topics such as public rituals and spaces (see Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022; Pantoja et al 2020), physical mobility (see Fisher 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022), social inequality including health outcomes (see Lamb 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; Pantoja et al 2022; Tiesler and López Pérez 2022), place-making (see Fisher 2022; Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022), rural resilience and longevity (see Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Pantoja et al 2022; Valdez et al 2022), and inter-polity relations (see Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Tiesler and López Pérez 2022; Valdez et al 2022). The authors work at various scales of analysis, from individual buildings to interregional comparisons, using a variety of datasets including settlement and landscape patterns, architecture, portable goods, iconography and epigraphy, and human remains.…”

“…Diverse theoretical approaches and concepts are applied, such as practice and agency, heterarchy, embodiment, historical ecology, political economy, and biocultural dialectics. While some are explicit in considering and even defining “rurality” (Fisher 2022; Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022; Valdez et al 2022), others do so more tacitly through comparing rural and city experiences and processes (Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Tiesler and López Pérez 2022). Yet amidst this heterogeneity, the articles in this Special Section share the notions that rural sites are interesting places worthy of study, that the countryside is necessary to understand city and polity dynamics, and that rural people and places were integral in broader social processes of continuity and change, albeit in diverse ways.…”